You'd be in good company with Microsoft circa 2001 with their (source-available) Shared Source Initiative, because your argument is the same one that people have been making back then and ever since: that banning field-of-use restrictions imposes too much of a burden on commercial entities.
But disallowing such field-of-use restrictions is exactly what makes open source collaboration between otherwise competing companies possible. It is a fundamental difference between Open Source and Source Available licenses.
Uhh, kubernetes would be an immediate example. A massive piece of software that has been adapted into every major cloud provider, with all those cloud providers working on that same piece of software.
While Google may have done it to make their own Cloud offering better, it ultimately has succeeded in saturating the container compute market and with their own success has brought plenty of competition.
On the contrary, Google made Kubernetes precisely so they could commoditize every other cloud provider and then offer the strongest Kubernetes provider there is. When AWS is just a layer under Kubernetes, you can move your entire infrastructure to GCP by pushing your Kubernetes config to a different endpoint.
But disallowing such field-of-use restrictions is exactly what makes open source collaboration between otherwise competing companies possible. It is a fundamental difference between Open Source and Source Available licenses.